CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 31 March 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16398/24 D. and Others against Finland lodged on 3 June 2024 communicated on 12 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns several successive decisions of the Finnish Government to temporarily close the land border between Finland and Russia pursuant to the Border Guard Act, and the impact of those decisions on the applicants’ Convention rights. The nine applicants are Finnish nationals or residents of Finland. They are of Russian origin and belong to Finland’s recognised Russian-speaking minority. They submit that frequent travelling across the border between Finland and Russia has been an important part of their lives. The applicants therefore lodged an appeal against the decisions of the Finnish Government of 16, 22 and 28 November 2023, 12 and 14   December 2023, 11 January 2024 and 8 February 2024 to the Supreme Administrative Court. However, on 14 March 2024 that court declared their appeals inadmissible for lack of legal interest. It held that the contested decisions were not specifically addressed to any of the applicants but affected all persons crossing the land border between Finland and Russia. However, as not all border crossings were closed, the decisions did not make travel between Finland and Russia completely impossible. Thus, while the decisions in question affected the applicants’ freedom of movement and certain other fundamental rights, those rights were not directly affected, as required by section 7, subsection 1, of the Administrative Procedure Act. The applicants therefore had no right to appeal against those decisions. All nine applicants raise complaints under Article 8 of the Convention. Eight of the nine applicants have family members living in Russia, whom they are allegedly not able to meet, and thus complain of a breach of their right to respect for family life. The remaining (sixth) applicant, who had a job in Russia which she had to quit because of the border closures, complains of a breach of her right to respect for her private life. The first and ninth applicants complain, under Article 9 of the Convention, that the decisions to close the border are also in breach of their right to freedom of religion. Specifically, the first applicant complains that he cannot go to the graveyard six times a year as required by his Orthodox religion, whereas the ninth applicant complains that the border closure prevents him from meeting his religious duties as an Orthodox, including the six yearly visits to his father’s grave. The fifth applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that, because of the closure of the border, she cannot collect her Russian pension which, due to the EU sanctions against the Russian banks, can only be collected in person. The applicants further complain under Article 14, read in conjunction with Articles   8 and 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, that by refusing any accommodation in respect of its national minority of Russian speakers or persons of Russian origin during the border closure, to enable their enjoyment of their Convention rights, the State has engaged in conduct that constitutes prohibited discrimination. Lastly, the applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy at their disposal for their above ‑ mentioned Convention complaints as the Supreme Administrative Court refused even to hear the facts and arguments presented. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the several successive decisions of the Finnish Government to temporarily close the land border between Finland and Russia pursuant to the Border Guard Act in breach of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 198, ECHR 2012)?   2.     Was the border closure in breach of the first and ninth applicant’s right to freedom of religion, in that they could not meet their religious duties as members of the Orthodox Church, including the six yearly visits to the graves of their family members, contrary to Article 9 § 1 of the Convention (see   Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, §§ 241-246, ECHR 2001-IV)?   3.     Was the border closure in breach of the fifth applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, as she could not go to Russia to collect her Russian pension which can only be collected in person (see Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18   December 1996, §§ 60–61 and 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI)?   4.     Does the present case concern a situation in which the State has an obligation to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR   2000 ‑ IV; and Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.   27996/06 and 34836/06, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2009)? If so, did the applicants suffer discrimination because of their Russian origin, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 thereto? In particular, by refusing any accommodation in respect of its national minority of Russian speakers or persons of Russian origin during the border closure, to enable their enjoyment of their Convention rights, did the State engage in conduct that constitutes prohibited discrimination?   5.     Did the Supreme Administrative Court’s finding that the applicants’ rights were not directly affected by the border closure and that they thus did not have a right to appeal amount to a breach of their right of access to a court, for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §   86, 29   November 2016), and/or to a breach of their right to an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Basu v. Germany , no.   215/19, § 41, 18   October 2022)?